Wiping servers yet?

Conan Exiles General Discussion
1

Really after playing a few other games, Windrose is Conan’s only real competition for this type of game. ARK and I have issues.

All it would take to get me back in to this is a long list of bug fixes and a nice fresh stable server.

I do intend to get Windrose, but steam and I are at odds over them wanting my full name and shipping address to spend the money I have in my steam wallet. I’d have bough that newish version ARK other wise; been invited to the neebs gaming server and it sat at 75% off for a while.

2

Renta a server and play how you want or join a server that does wipes , done!!

3

While this is true, it is also one of the reason why Conan Exiles never will be the game it had potential to become.
I agree with Deacon that the official servers having gigantic builds which only exist because of serial refreshing, no limitations or upkeep, they could do with a once or twice in a year wipe so that most new players would get a decent experience of playing there.

4

that is a matter of perspective. i have seen most of those gigantic builds decay,.
the solution is not to wipe, but to find a way to get rid of buildings from inactive players. not to wipe everything including from people that is actually active…

6

The main reason is that it would be a lot more complicated. (This has been argued a LOT in the forums, so I’m not going to go too deep on it.)
Firstly, different types of pieces have different ‘weight’ on the server. Secondly, different ways of building have different ‘weight’ on the server. It’s perfectly possible to build in more or less ‘damaging’ ways, depending on someone’s intent. Putting a fixed number limit on it creates the situation where ‘bad actors’ can easily abuse the system while staying within the piece limit, while ‘good faith’ builders end up limited well before their building actually would have become a problem.

Thirdly, a good chunk of the lag problems affects different players differently, because a good chunk of it is client side. No, not all of it, but a lot of people that rant about it turn out to be also running inferior hardware - in some instances below the minimum specs listed for the game, let alone the recommended specs. So that raises a question of which specs should the game be judged on to even figure out a reasonable piece limt? And then there’s the question of server population - if a server runs fine with 10 builds within a certain piece limit, will the same server also run fine with 20 builds within that limit? How many players are allowed to build on a server?

You get the idea.

Clearly, there is a problem with overbuilding, and serial refreshing, especially given GPortal’s less than stellar hardware. And clearly there is need for some sort of solution, given that the admin oversight is too limited, and the upkeep system is too easy to ignore and just refresh. But a piece limit is not the easy solution that people would often like it to be and, in fact, may not solve anything at all.

7

The best idea (IMO) that I’ve seen to try to solve the true issue (serial refreshing), would be some sort of upkeep cost. This also gets very complicated, but at least theoretically would allow playing of the game while making serial refreshing much more difficult.

The suggestion would be that there need to be multiple avenues to pay the cost, suitable for different playstyles. A burden that should not be too onerous for legitimate players, but should not be too easy for serial refreshers to simply pay out of a long established hoard. (Though it should also be possible to stockpile to a reasonable degree so that players can take a holiday, without losing everything.)

The biggest problem is that it risks become a ‘taxation simulator’ - which is why Dune has recently done away with that mechanic, because it wasn’t working.

A couple of examples of what I think could work -
a relatively ‘cheap’ payment of x world boss hearts (or something similar) per refresh period - something that rewards playing the game and being out in the world. (For PVP, this might also add value to raiding?) There would need to be some sort of earlier game option, particularly for newer players and smaller lower tier structures in order to not make it unfeasible.

a more expensive, material cost for refreshing, to suit harvester/builder type players. (Obviously I haven’t done the maths, so numbers are meant more as conceptual placeholders than actual suggestions.) Players could pay a certain percentage of the total build pieces in building materials (perhaps 1% per refresh - maybe less, that might actually be a really heavy burden) - hardened brick, shaped wood and steel reinforcements for tier 3, lower tier materials for lower tier buildings (with a building that contains at least 5% tier 3 counting as fully tier 3, to minimise sandstone spam). Perhaps paying a 10th of that refresh cost if refreshing day one, up to the full cost if refreshing day ten, so it scales in a similar way to costs for repairing items. (whatever full cost works to be.)

a mid-range cost option, paying in gold? Or jailors keys?

Details would obviously still need to be solved. And I don’t think it would be easy to get the balance right. But I do think some sort of multi-layered system like this might be the best suggestion. (At least when compared to all the others I’ve seen suggested over the years.)

Of course - thorough admin oversight would probably be best of all. But that’s also potentially a very expensive (real world cost) option, requiring full-time staff, so it has some definite flaws of its own, and would probably need to go hand in hand with some sort of ‘service charge’ for use of the servers in the first place.

Anyway. Just some proactive thoughts, rather than just shooting down ideas without offering alternatives.

Edit: Oh it should also go without saying that this should all have some sort of toggle for private servers/singleplayer to turn off as desired (and/or maybe a slider to scale it as well). We’re trying to solve the problems of official servers, not create problems elsewhere.

8

MCO you rent a server to build your roman temple distinct. You want to show off your building skills? You want to build Hogwarts? Camelot? You want to show of your ton of bazaar purchases? That is what you rent a server for.

I know I’m not the only one that loses interest once you hit level cap; way to soon, and have done everything. I’d rather start over and do it again then just log in and refresh.

For me the best part of any game is getting there.

9

If there must be an upkeep cost perhaps it could be something along the lines of turning in legendary weapons or something obtained from dismantling them. Would give a use for broken legendaries and reduce storage clutter.

Would however need some type of escalating system, as that wouldn’t work for newbs, which might make it too problematic to implement.

10

I have no sympathy for hoarders that lag down a server.

11

And, at the same time, the cost would need to be high enough to meaningfully impact the hoarders. It couldn’t just be something that they would already have an easy time paying off just from what they have lying around.

This is the great difficulty with finding a suitable system - getting a balance that works for noobs while not being too easy for hoarders. Something that actually encourages play, but doesn’t force players to focus on one thing in particular (because ‘sandbox’ should mean that many playstyles are suitable). It’s a really tough one to figure out. Which is probably why Funcom doesn’t do it. But I still think it would be the best of a bad batch of options. Wipes can only work if there are also non-wiping servers, so people can choose. Admin oversight costs too much to be done at the level needed. Build piece limits are far more complex than people expect, and likely to not work anyway.

As you say, it’s definitely problematic…

12

I have no sympathy for people telling other people how they sheould play the game…

same debate, different month…and you seem to start it every time. Don’t be cheap, rent your server, do as you see fit.

kkthxbb

13

Annual wipes would discourage large builds and hording.

I’m not say every server but if there was one with an option there is where I would be.

As I have said, the private 7days to die server I play on wipes every 500 game days. Take a deep breath, start fresh.

I think you’re confused Raudl there is not argument here. So please try to start one else where.

14

with wipes the game would have died long ago. Hope in enhanced that won’t be an issue

15

I disagree. I feel the mega builds and server lag are what is killing the public servers.

I quit because of them, and gave up when I tried to come back because of them.

16

and that is pretty much everybody that does…

17

thrall emotes, living settlements, vpn connects and using too many light sources produced lag not the big buildings, but i am not going to get into this old discussion with you.

Lets just agree to disagree and wait for may 5th

18

lets not forget, the issues he once described were also caused by his poatoe of a PC. I’d be surprised if he ever upgraded his GTX 1070 and i5 5th gen and HDD.

I even joined one of the servers he mentioned to have specific issues US 1728 …no issues ever for me.

19

Sorry folks, you simply are no longer worth my time of day to argue with.

20

Rust does this really well. The bigger your base & higher teir the materials, the more it costs to upkeep. You want to build big, you get to farm big.

21

A single player game to be forgotten in a month. When devs announced there weill be no official servers for it or any online support, the game already died.